--- Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What "user friendliness" are you talking about? > > --jason > > > On Jul 5, 2006, at 2:25 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote: > > > I would also prefer to see any changes to improve the > > maintainability and user friendliness of M2 build be held off > until > > the server assembly is functional. > > > > Thanks > > Anita > > > > --- David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > >> On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:25 AM, John Sisson wrote: > >> > >>> Jacek Laskowski wrote: > >>>> On 7/3/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> NOTE... the m2 build in trunk is already broken... this patches > >> help > >>>>> FIX MANY OF THOSE PROBLEMS! > >>>> > >>>> NOTED, but... it's not broken. it has never worked so we can > >> pretend > >>>> to call it broken. It's a small, but important point we cannot > >>>> dismiss. > >>>> > >>>>> Since the official build is still m1 and this will not affect > the > >> m1 > >>>>> build, I don't see why your point about breakage is applicable > at > >> > >>>>> all. > >>>> ... > >>>>> When I first created the m1 build for Geronimo years ago there > >> were > >>>>> certainly a few moments of breakage due to build changes, but > >> since > >>>>> there was no commit by committee junk going on then it was easy > >> to > >>>>> just fix when things happened to get a bit askew. > >>>>> > >>>>> The branch idea was just to make it easier to actually make > >>>>> progress, > >>>>> as I am move on this stuff way way faster than the lot of you > can > >>>>> react to emails and JIRAs which often (as this one did) need > >> several > >>>>> sets of emails to clarify. > >>>> > >>>> That's the point in RTC - discussing, discussing, over and over > >>>> again. > >>>> I'm not in favour of RTC, but some of its rules are fine. It > >> fosters > >>>> discussions we lacked. That's the main point of RTC. Isn't it > >> funny > >>>> that you've mentioned it as an argument against RTC? > >>>> > >>>> What's wrong with committing changes made in the branch back to > >> trunk > >>>> once they've been tested? My proposal is not to wait until the > >>>> migration is done, but rather apply it in small portions, > >> gradually. > >>>> It should work, shouldn't it? I'd greatly appreciate your > comment > >> on > >>>> it as I guess I don't see the whole picture and keep thinking > the > >>>> branch might help when others have already seen it would fall > >> short. > >>>> > >>> Can we avoid the concerns that have been aired regarding svn > >>> merging issues when directories are reorganised by leaving the > >>> reorganization of directories as a last phase of the m2 > migration? > >>> > >>> I would have thought that we could move further along with the > >>> migration without reorganizing directories (AFAIK, maven should > be > >> > >>> able to work with existing directory structures, although doing > so > >> > >>> may incur more work). We would also need to coordinate the > >>> reorganization of directories with the owners of other branches > >>> from trunk, to minimize the impact on them. > >> > >> I would prefer to wait to reorganize the directories until after > the > >> > >> work in the dead-1.2 branch is merged with trunk. I plan to go > back > >> > >> to this activity now. Other committers may wish to note that > merging > >> > >> the work in dead-1.2 should not need RTC as it is already part of > a > >> main development line. > >> > >> thanks > >> david jencks > >> > >>> > >>> John > >>>>> --jason > >>>> > >>>> Jacek > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
